Prohibit the Board of Regents and institutions under its control from requiring students to reside in on-campus housing or purchase meal plans.
Summary
House Bill 1193 would prohibit the South Dakota Board of Regents and the public institutions it oversees from requiring students to live in on-campus housing or to buy a meal plan or meal voucher. In practical terms, the bill creates a statewide rule limiting mandatory housing and dining requirements at regental colleges and universities, while still allowing those institutions to offer housing and meal plans voluntarily.
The measure appears aimed at increasing student choice and reducing required costs associated with attending a public university. It would affect policies at institutions under the Board of Regents by removing their ability to condition enrollment, continued attendance, or participation in certain programs on mandatory residence hall contracts or meal-plan purchases.
Impact
HB1193 would add a new section to chapter 13-53 of South Dakota law and directly constrain the authority of the Board of Regents and its institutions. It would not eliminate campus housing or dining services, but it would bar mandatory participation in those services, likely requiring policy changes at public universities and colleges governed by the Board of Regents. The bill could affect student housing contracts, freshman residency requirements, and any institutional policies that bundle housing or dining with enrollment.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have mixed but meaningful support, with some legislative backing in committee but clear resistance on the floor. It received narrow 8-7 votes on both a motion to amend and a do-pass-amended motion in committee, suggesting divided views among members. However, the final recorded House vote was 28-42 against do pass amended, indicating the chamber was not broadly supportive of advancing the bill in its amended form.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether public universities should be allowed to require students to live on campus or purchase meal plans as part of their housing and student-life policies. Supporters likely view the bill as a consumer-choice and affordability measure that prevents mandatory fees and contracts, while opponents likely see such requirements as a legitimate tool for campus planning, student engagement, and revenue stability. The close committee votes and the later House defeat suggest disagreement over the balance between student autonomy and institutional discretion.